m. 



mr SD ^ 

.08 A5 



HjihiXrxL 



(ry\^ 






pruial 



\yimJLct<r\ 





Qass- 
Book. 



REPORT ON 

ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST 



WITH REFERENCE TO 

H. R. BILL No. 21894 

' TO EXCLUDE FROM ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST 
ALL LANDS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF MONT- 
GOMERY AND RESTORE SAME TO 
PUBLIC DOMAIN " 



BY 

D. D. BRONSON 

GENERAL INSPECTOR, . FOREST SERVICE 



MAY 7, 1910 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



MAY hi lulu 









Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. C, Maij 10, 1910. 
Hon. F. W. Mondell, 

House of Representatives. 
Dear Sir: In further reference to your letter of March 18, request- 
ing a report on the bill (H. R. 21894) to exclude from Arkansas 
National Forest all lands within the county of Montgomery and restore 
same to public domain, and my reply to it: 

In reply I stated that a member of the Forest Service had made an 
extensive examination of the conditions existing in the Arkansas 
National Forest, and that he would prepare a report to be transmitted 
to you. 

I inclose this report and indorse the recommendations contained 
therein. Referring to the recommendation at the close of paragraph 
(a), on page — • of Mr. Bronson's report, proposed legislation has been 
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for the relief of settlers 
whose entries were erroneously allowed subsequent to the withdrawal 
of the lands, and the Secretary of the Interior informs me that he 
approved of the measure, and I have requested him to submit it to 
Cfongress for such action as he may wish to take. 

If any further information is desired at the time this bill is being 
considered Mr. Bronson is available, and can appear before the Com- 
mittee on Public Lands upon request. 

Very truly, yours, W. M. Hays, 

Acting Secretary. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Introduction 7 

Area 7 

Topography 8 

Forest types 8 

Agricultural lands 9 

Alienations 9 

Probable reasons for bill 10 

(a) Erroneous allowance of entries 11 

(b) Relinquishments 13 

(c) False and exaggerated rumors 14 

(d) The overestimation of stumpage on homestead entries 15 

(e) Confusion between homestead law and forest homestead law (act of 

June 11, 1906) 15 

(/) Grazing permits 16 

(g) Alleged retarding of settlement and railroad development in Mont- 
gomery County 16 

(h) Stricter enforcement of homestead law following a looser enf orcerdent . 17 

(i) Long delays in receiving final certificates 17 

(j) Forest homestead policy and delays in examination 18 

(k) Timber trespass cases 19 

(l) Enforcement of fire law 19 

Sentiment 20 

Effect of proposed elimination of Montgomery County 21 

Recommendations 22 

5 



REPORT ON ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST WITH REFERENCE 
TO H. R. 21894, "TO EXCLUDE FROM ARKANSAS NATIONAL 
FOREST ALL LANDS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY 
AND RESTORE SAME TO PUBLIC DOMAIN." 



By D. D. Bronson, 

General Inspector, Forest Service. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The Associate Forester's letter (F-Supervision) of February 9, 1910, 
instructed me as follows: 

In accordance with the request of the Secretary of Agriculture you will fully inves- 
tigate all complaints which are made to you in reference to the administration of the 
national forests in the State of Arkansas, and prepare a report giving such facts as 
you are able to obtain and making recommendations for such action as appears neces- 
sary to properly adjust the matter. 

In accordance with these instructions I made the required investi- 
gation, remaining in Arkansas from February 4 to March 11, the 
greater portion of this period being spent in Montgomery County. 
In the course of my investigation of complaints against the admin- 
istration of the Arkansas National Forest I visited all parts of Mont- 
gomery County and became thoroughly acquainted with the topog- 
raphy and character of the portion of the county embraced in the 
forest. 

As the question of elimination or retention of land now embraced 
within national forests is based primarily upon the character of the 
land the effect upon stream flow, continuous timber supply, the value 
of the land for purposes other than the production of timber, and 
per cent of alienations, I believe that these factors should be given 
the greatest consideration, as complaints against the administration 
of the forest can be readily adjusted if it appears that any injustice 
has been done. 

AREA. 

The total area of the Arkansas National Forest is 1,663, .300 acres, 
having been established by presidential proclamations of December 
18, 1907, and February 2l] 1909. This acreage includes vacant land, 
pending entries, and patented land within the boundary of the 
forest. The forest embraces land within the counties of Scott, Yell, 
Perry, Saline, Garland, Pike, Polk, and Montgomery. The area 
of national forest land in Montgomery County is greater than in any 
of the other counties and includes approximately 500,380 acres. 
The total area of Montgomery County (General Land Office figures) 
is 577,500 acres. The average population of the county per square 

mile is about 10. 

7 



8 ABKAKSAS NATIONAL FOKEST. 

TOPOGRAPHY. 

The northern boundary of the county is a portion of the main 
ridge of the Fourche Mountain Range, having a maximum elevation 
of 2,300 feet. The steeper ridges and footMlls from this range cause 
the northern tier of townships to be very broken. Just south of these 
foothills is the Ouachita River, flowing meanderingly eastward. This 
river drains a large per cent of the county and flows into Black River, 
which reaches the Mississippi through the Red River. As this 
mountain country is the source of one of the principal tributaries 
of the Red River it should be given all possible protection to regulate 
the stream flow and prevent rapid run-off. 

Ouachita basin is about 30 miles long and from 5 to 8 miles wide, 
lying between the Crystal Mountains and the Fourche Range. At 
the western end of the Crystal Mountains is a small area known as 
the Caddo basin, in which the town of Black Springs is located. 
These two basins make up the principal agricultural land of the county. 
Even these valleys, however, are rather narrow or badly broken by 
hills and rocky outcrops. South of the Ouachita River and covering 
about two-thirds of the county is the Ouachita Range, of which the 
more important mountians are the Cossatot, Caddo, and Crystal. 
The Ouachita Range is made up of a large number of parallel ridges 
running in an easterly and westerly direction. In general these 
ridges are narrow, with steep slopes and sharp, straight, barren 
crests. The highest of these ridges are in the southwestern part, 
with an elevation of about 1,800 feet above sea level, with here and 
there prominent peaks mounting to over 2,000 feet above sea level, 
or over 1,000 feet above the streams at their bases. The steep slopes 
and crests are, in many cases, covered with a large amount of rocky 
debris, rendering climbing extremely slow and difficult. The entire 
portion of the countv embraced in the forest is essentially moun- 
tainous land, with comparatively level bottom land along the principal 
streams, 

FOREST TYPES. 

With the exception of land which has been cleared for agriculture, 
the entire area is covered with a mixture of hard woods and shortleaf 
pine, with some juniper (locally called cedar) occurring in the eastern 
part of the county upon locations having shallow dry soil. The hard 
woods consist mostly of black and white oak, with a Httle hickory, ash, 
and black gum. In logged-over areas where the surface fires have 
not been too severe there is a good stand of second growth. In the 
southern portion of the county which is tributary to the present 
terrninus of the Gurdon and Fort Smith Railroad there is considerable 
logging upon private holdings, and several sales of government stump- 
age have also been made and others are contemplated. Throughout 
the accessible portions of the county choice pine and white-oak trees 
have been cut for shakes and stave bolts. In the northwestern part 
of the county near the survey of the proposed extension of. the 
Gurdon and Fort Smith Railroad large tracts have been acquired by 
timber companies and will undoubtedly be logged when the railroad 
is extended. These tracts were acquired by purchase from home- 
steaders and locators under the timber and stone act, and by the 
locating of scrip before the creation of the forest. 



ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 9 

In stand and quality throughout the county the timber is exceed- 
ingly "patchy." In general the pine timber is of better quality on 
the lower elevations, and on the steep ridges and higher elevations 
it becomes more scrubb3\ The oak is of poor quality and is almost 
invariably found to be hollow, which is probably due to the repeated 
fires which have occurred for many years over almost the entire 
territory. In board feet the stand will run from 2,000 to 10,000 
feet per acre. It is probable if the fires could be kept out that a much 
heavier stand of timber and of better quality could be produced 
eventually. 

AGRICULTURAL LANDS. 

As Montgomery County has been settled for a great number of 
years, practically all the agricultural lands became alienated many 
years ago. The best of these lands occur along the river bottoms, 
although there is considerable clearing and agriculture practiced upon 
the upper benches at the base of the steeper ridges. These bottom 
lands are very fertile and good crops are raised. Throughout these 
bottom lands there are only a few vacant forties and these can be 
opened to entry under the act of June 11, 1906, upon application. 
The question of opening for entiy lands on the upper benches is one 
which must be decided in each specific instance by a carefid examina- 
tion on the ground in order to iletermine if the tract applied for is 
fitted for agriculture. Considering the long settlement in Montgomery 
County, I believe I am conservative in stating that not over 5 per 
cent of the vacant forest land in the county is chiefly valuable for 
agriculture. 

ALIENATIONS. 

In the entire forest 32.2 per cent is alienated land, which includes 
pending homestead entries. In Montgomery County 54 per cent is 
patented, 20 per cent is covered by pending homestead entries, and 
26 per cent is vacant land. The reason for the large per cent of 
alienated land in this county is on account of several townships 
where the ahenations are exceptional!}' heavy. The public lands in 
the county have been open to entry for so long that not only has all 
the valuable agricultural land been taken, but also all the more 
valuable and easily accessible timber land. The vacant lands remain- 
ing are in the mountains where the land is rough and bi'oken, and at 
present largely inaccessible, with the exception of scattered forties, 
eighties, and cpiarter sections occurring throughout the bottom and 
bench lands. 

The recent building of the raih'oad into the county was the occa- 
sion of increased interest in timber lands which before had been con- 
sidered valueless because of inaccessibility, and numerous timber 
entries have been made for the purpose of acfiuiring such timber, 
and many homesteadei-s upon acquiring patent sold their holdings to 
timber purchasers. This railroad will probably be extended entirely 
across the county within a year or two, and if the portion of the 
county in the forest were eliminated the remaining vacant timber 
land would soon be in the hands of timber speculators. The existence 
of the national forest does not interfere with tlie actual rights of 
bona fide settlers, and its continuance will enable the Government 
to administer the remaining vacant forest land, selhng the mature 



10 ARKAKSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 

timber and retaining title to the land for the production of future 
timber crops upon land which can be classified as chiefly valuable 
for the production of timber. 

PROBABLE REASONS FOR BILL. 

As the result of my investigation, I believe that the reasons for 
the request of the constituents of Congressman Cravens to introduce 
H. R. 21894 were not based upon the opinion that the vacant gov- 
ernment land within the portion of Montgomery County in the Arkan- 
sas national forest should be eliminated on account of its nonforest 
character, but on account of certain complaints against the admin- 
istration of tlie forest and alleged irregularities by certain local 
forest officers. 

All specific cases of complaint were thoroughly investigated and 
affidavits obtained in each case of any importance. These specific 
cases, wdth proper recommendations, will be fully discussed in my com- 
plete report on the subject. On account of the numerous cases looked 
into and the large amount of affidavits and other documentary evi- 
dence, it will be some time before I will be able to submit my report 
covering the complaints. However, if in connection with the con- 
sideration of this bill injormation is desired upon any specific case 
which may have been brought to Mr. Cravens's attention, I will be 
glad to make it the subject of a special report. This is mentioned at 
this time in this report, as I notice from the issue of the Montgomery 
Times of February 25, it is stated, "A large registered package con- 
taining resolutions, signatures, evidence, data, etc., was forwarded to 
Mr. Cravens on Monday afternoon." At Mount Ida, the county seat 
of Montgomery County, on February 5, occurred a homesteaders' 
meeting of protest against the administration of the forest. At that 
time a committee was appointed for the purpose of securing written 
evidence of alleged irregularity, and I presume that such evidence 
secured by this committee was sent to Mr. Cravens. This com- 
mittee supplied me with copies of all such evidence and several com- 
plaints were sent to the editor of the Montgomery Times, and upon 
one occasion he made a trip to the eastern part of the county and 
secured several aflfiidavits and written evidence, copies of which he 
furnished me. Therefore I was in possession of all documentary evi- 
dence secured prior to the time of my leaving Mount Ida. The editor 
of the Montgomery Times and the members of the committee gave 
me this evidence freely, and also furnished me w^ith the names of 
persons who were supposed to have complaints against the adminis- 
tration of the national forest, and, as far as possible, I visited all 
these persons. 

In making the investigation, my relations with the editor and other 
leaders in the movement against the Forest Service administration 
were very friendly and frank, and I am sure that some of the discus- 
sions resulted in clearing up certain points about wliich there seemed 
to have been some misunderstanding. The method which I followed 
in order to cover all complaints was to visit each town and settlement 
and secure from the storekeepers, postmasters, and other persons 
■the names of all who had complaints. In this way I secured many 
more names than were furnished by the committee and the editor. 
In many cases, after traveling several miles, I found upon talking 



ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 11 

with the homesteader that he had no complaint, but had made some 
statement at the store which woukl lead the storekeeper to believe 
that he was complaining against the service. While this consumed 
a good deal of time without the securing of any complaint or evidence 
of alleged irregularities, I do not think that it was time wasted, as it 
gave me an opportunity to explain the policy of the Forest Service 
and to correct false and exaggerated rumors which had been afloat 
throughout the community. In this connection I can not speak too 
highly of the hospitality of the residents of the mountain region of 
Arkansas. I believe that it is unequaled in any part of the United 
States. The reason given by the editor of the Montgomery Times 
for the present antiforest attitude of that paper is that several com- 
plaints came to his attention, and upon a preliminary investigation 
by him he decided that the homesteaders were being unfairly treated, 
and, therefore, that he took up their cause in his paper. It has been 
hinted to me that possibly the real reason was the timber interests, 
as if the forest should be abolished it would give certain timber 
companies a chance to secure more stumpage and consolidate their 
holdings. I have absolutely no evidence to show that any timber 
company was interested directly or indirectly in the present agitation, 
and will therefore assume that the position taken by the Montgomery 
Times is an honest endeavor to help the homesteaders, although 
many of the broad statements made in the several issues of the 
Montgomery Times are absolutely incorrect. 

It has also been alleged that possibl}" the Garland Power Develop- 
ment Company of Little Rock are interested in securing the elimina- 
tion of Montgomery County, since it is expected that their pro])osed 
dam on the Ouachita River east of the forest will back uj) the water 
so that about 20,000 acres of land inside the forest will be flooded. 
However, I have absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that this 
company is in any way interested in the present movement for the 
elimination of Montgomery County from the forest. 

I believe that the present situation which resulted in the antiforest 
agitation of the Montgomery Times and the homesteaders' meeting 
was caused by a diversity of reasons, many of which were without 
real foundation and can be classed as follows : 

(a) Erroneous allowance of entries. 

(h) Relinquishments. 

(c) False and exaggerated rumors. 

(d) The overestimation of stumpage on homestead entries. 

(e) Confusion between homestead law and forest homestead law. 
(Act of June 11, 1906.) 

(f) Grazing permits. 

(g) Alleged retarding of settlement and railroad development in 
Montgomery County. 

(h) Stricter enforcement of homestead law following a looser 
enforcement. 

(i) Long delays in receiving final certificates.-* 

(/') Forest homestead policy and delays in examination. 

(k) Timber trespass cases. 

(I) Enforcement of fire law. 

(a) Erroneous allowance of entries. — A large part of the Arkansas 
forest was withdrawn from entry May 10, 1907, and subsequent with- 



12 AKKAKSAS NATIONAL FOEEST. 

drawals of additional lands occurred June 17, 1907; November 23, 
1908; and February 27, 1909. In numerous instances, after the date 
of these withdrawals, lands included in such withdrawals were 
allowed to be entered without classification and listing under the act 
of June 11, 1906, receiver's duplicate receipts were issued, and the 
entrymen moved on the claims, and, in many instances, expended 
considerable amounts in labor and money in building improvements, 
clearing, and cultivating. After several months, and in some 
instances after over a year, the entrymen were notified by the Land 
Office that their claims were held for cancellation, on account of hav- 
ing been erroneously allowed. This has wrought great hardship upon 
entrymen and, in most instances, while it is probable that the entry 
was not made for the timber, very little of the land could be listed 
under the provisions of the act of June 11, 1906. In most instances 
the entryman did not understand the reason for the action taken by 
the Land Office in holding the claims for cancellation and blamed the 
Forest Service and the local forest officers for such action. After exam- 
ining carefully into several of these cases, I am strongly of the opinion 
that curative remedial legislation should be secured as soon as pos- 
sible, in order to afford relief to these entrymen and to correct the 
great injustice which has been done. Throughout the portion of 
Montgomery County in which I carried on the investigation, I found 
it to be the universal opinion that these entries were canceled on 
account of the efforts of the forest officers, and the real reason of such 
cancellations seemed to be entirely lost sight of, viz, that the entries 
were invalid from the start on account of having been allowed on 
lantl with(h*awn from entry, and the people were under the impres- 
sion that these entrymen were driven from their claims through the 
efforts of officials of the Forest Service. 

Upon inquiring at each little hamlet in Montgomery County for 
complaints against the administration of the Arkansas Forest, I was 
almost invariably informed by the storekeepers, postmasters, and 
other citizens that "The Forest Service is knocking out home- 
steaders;" and upon inquiring as to the names of homesteaders who 
had been ''knocked out," the reply always contained the names of one 
or more entrymen whose entries had been erroneously allowed by the 
local land office upon land withdrawn from entry. I consider the 
erroneous allowance of these entries and the subsequent cancellation 
to be the principal cause of the present antiforest agitation and senti- 
ment in Montgomery County. In many cases it appeared that the 
homestead application was made before the county clerk of Mont- 
gomery County some time before the withdrawal of the lands involved, 
but the entry succeeded the withdrawal by a considerable period. 
The county clerk informed me that it was his custom to transmit to 
the Camden land office the applications and fees promptly upon 
receiving them, and the delay in the date of entry appears to lie with 
the Camden land office. I believe that these mistakes on the part of 
the local land office -which have resulted in the present situation 
should be rectified and the entries allowed to be validated and rein- 
stated after the passage of the necessary legislation. It is my under- 
standing that such remedial legislation is now contemplated, and it 
is to be hoped that such relief measure will be passed during the 
present session of Congress. 



AKKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 13 

(6) Relinquishments. — A number of relinquishments were given 
forest officers, and afterward the entrymen regretted having relin- 
quished and blamed the forest oflicers for accepting the relinquish- 
ments. A considerable number of such cases were investigated, and 
each specific case will be discussed in detail in my complete report 
upon complaints against the administration of the forest. 

On June 2, 1908, the forest supervisor for the Arkansas National 
Forest issued the following order to all forest rangers under his juris- 
diction : 

Fort Smith, Ark., June 2, 1908. 
To all forest officers, Arkansas National Forest. 

Gentlemen: In securing relinquishments great care should be exercised that there 
may be no misunderstanding nor grounds for complaint. The relinquishments should 
be given voluntarily, and at no time should there be the slightest appearance of 
coercion. 

Very truly, yours, Samuel J. Record, 

Forest Supervisor. 

And on June 6, 1908, he issued the following order: 

Fort Smith, Ark., June 6, 190S. 
To all forest officers, Arkansas National Forest. 

Gentlemen: Hereafter whenever, a relinquishment is obtained, it must be for- 
warded to the supervisor accompanied by full and detailed explanation of how and 
why such relinquishment was given. It is also desirable that a report on Form 655 
accompany such relinquishment. Under no circumstances must the forest officer 
obtain a relinquishment by threats, coercion, or undue persuasion. This order must 
be strictly obeyed. 

Very truly, yours, Samuel J. Record, 

Forest Supervisor. 

On September 3, 1908, general service order No. 22, signetl by the 
Associate Forester, states — 

In receiving relinquishments forest officers should carefully avoid making a per- 
emptory demand or using any words which could be construed as a threat of proceed- 
ings in the courts. The administration of the laws affecting the relinquishment of 
lands in national forests remains with the Department of the Interior (Use Book, p. 
218). The forest officer is only a medium of transmittal. 

In my investigation of complaints resulting from the giving of 
relinquishments, I have failed to find any cases where forest officers 
have violated these instructions, but did find several cases in which 
the forest officer appeared to use considerable persistence in obtaining 
relinquishments of claims which he considered would fail to go to 
patent on account of noncompliance with the requirements of the 
homestead law. Relinquishments received under those conditions 
are greatly to be regretted, and the forest ranger is to be severely 
criticised for lack of judgment displayed in exhibiting such persist- 
ence in securing those relinquishments. 

According to Land Decisions (4 L. D., 281; 8 L. D., 192; 25 L. D., 
197) a relinquishment must be intentionall}^ and voluntarily made; 
one obtained through misrepresentation, deceit, or duress is void. 
In my investigation I failed to find any case where it can be con- 
sidered that the relinquishment was not voluntary and intentional, 
or where it was obtained through misrepresentation, deceit, or duress. 

It is to be regretted that any relinquishments were received by 
forest officers on the Arkansas Forest, as it has been the cause of a 
great deal of misunderstanding, criticism, and sentiment adverse to 
the Forest Service. 



14 ARKAKSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 

This situation has ah-eadv been rectified by the recent General 
Service Order No. 40, dated March 14, 1910: 

Hereafter no forest officer shall under any circumstances request a homestead entry- 
man to relinquish his claim or suggest for any reason whatsoever that such a course is 
desirable. If any homestead entryman voluntarily offers to relinquish his claim, the 
forest officer may suggest that the relinquishment be transmitted to the local land 
office, but should not encourage this to be done. Forest officers who receive by mail 
relinquishments from claimants must return the relinquishment with the suggestion 
that if the entryman desires to relinquish he should send it to the local land office. 
No forest officer should be a party to a compromise whereby any claims or trespass case 
is settled by requiring the claimant to relinquish to the Government. 

H. S. Graves, Forester. 

(c) False and exaggerated rumors. — As has already been noted, the 
portion of Montgomery County in the Arkansas Forest is well settled 
along the river bottom lands, and there are numerous small hamlets 
as well as the towns of Womble and Mount Ida within the forest 
boundary. The forest is still young, the portion created by presi- 
dential proclamation of December 18, 1907, having been put under 
administration in 1908, and the addition covered by presidential 
proclamation of February 27, 1909, having been put under adminis- 
tration a short time subsecpient to that date. The settlers and resi- 
dents in the forest were alarmed and did not understand the National 
Forest policy, so that many false and exaggerated rumors as to laws, 
rules, and regulations to be inaugurated were disseminated. I found 
during my investigation that many of these erroneous rumors were 
still believed by the homesteaders, and that such rumors have con- 
tributed materially to the antiforest sentiment. 

As an illustration of these rumors, the following might be mentioned : 

That the Forest Service was endeavoring to knock out all homesteads which had not 
gone to patent. 

That a forest ranger received $40 for every homestead he was able to knock out. 

That at the time of final proof the timber land would be cut out from the claim and 
only the agricultural portion patented. 

That the stumpage on homestead claims was purposely being overestimated in order 
to reduce the chances of the entry men to obtain patent. 

That an exorbitant fee would be charged for grazing stock in the forest. 

That no dead wood or pine knots would be allowed to be taken for domestic use 
from government lands in the forest 

That no vacant agricultural land would be open for entry. 

That no patents were being issued for lands which had been entered and final proof 
offered. 

These and many other rumors were given credence and succeeded 
in thoroughly alarming the residents, especially those who had not as 
yet proved up their claims. 

The citizens are gradually finding that these rumors are without 
foundation, and when the policy of the Forest Service administration 
is better understood, and they become convinced that these rumors 
are utterly false, I am sure that there will be a much better feeling 
toward the forest administration. In several instances, while I was 
on the forest, homesteaders were receiving their patents, and this had 
a tendency to relieve the situation in the immediate locality of these 
patentees. 

I believe that the forest "supervisor and the forest rangers have con- 
scientiously endeavored in every way possible to explain and con- 
trovert these rumors, and in a short time this matter will be fully 
understood by all residents of the forest. 



ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 15 

(d) The over estimation of stumpage on homestead entries. — "When 
the forest was first put under administration, for the purpose of a 
complete record the forest rangers were instructed to report on all 
pending homestead entries, and this report included an estimate of 
the timber on the claim. The reports were not intended to be very 
accurate on this point, as they were not expected to be transmitted 
to the General Land Ofhce at the time of final proof, as when final 
proof was advertised a subse(|uent and more careful report was 
prepared for such transmission if necessary. Consequently these 
prehminary reports were very hurriedly made, and in many instances 
the amount of timber was overestimated, especially by one ranger 
who had had little experience in timber work prior to his appoint- 
ment and included in his estimate all classes of timber, such as 
cordwood, poles, posts, etc., which he transferred to board feet. 
This materially increased the estimate and gave the appearance of 
willful overestimation. The stand of timber as given in such reports 
in some instances came to the knowledge of the entryman, and he 
became greatly alarmed, thinking that it would prejudice his chances 
of securing patent. This produced much adverse criticism and the 
charge that forest officers were deliberately attempting to injure 
the possibility of homestead entries going to patent. 

The cause of this overestimation and the reason of these prelimi- 
nary reports have been explained as widely as possible to the home- 
steaders, and there will be no further cause for complaint, as no 
more preliminary reports will be made, except in unusual instances, 
as in the future the forest officer will make only the one report at the 
time final proof notice is being advertised, and this report, under the 
present instructions, will be a statement of facts as he finds them on 
the ground, unaccompanied by recommendations of any kind. 

(e) Confusion between homestead law and forest homestead law (act 
of June 11, 1906). — In explaining the provisions of the forest home- 
stead law for entry of agricultural land within a national forest the 
forest officers stated that after application was made the land was 
examined by a Forest Service land examiner, and the portion found 
to be chiefly valuable for agriculture would be listed to the Depart- 
ment of the Interior and opened for homestead entry, and that all or 
any portion of land applied for under the forest homestead act which, 
if found upon examination to be chiefly valuable for timber, would 
not be listed under this act, and consequently would not be opened 
for entry. 

As the people were unfamiliar with the forest homestead law and 
had previously only been used to the regular homestead laws in force 
on the public domain, confusion and misunderstanding occurred, and 
many of the entrymen who had filed under the regular homestead law 
prior to the withdrawal of the land for forest purposes and who had 
not as yet proved up received the impression that the land covered by 
tlip'ir filing would be examined and the timber land eliminated. This 
idea contributed toward the antagonism against the Forest Service 
administration. 

I believe that to a large extent this confusion between the two laws 
has been cleared up and that in general the people now have a good 
understanding of the difference between the two laws and now know 
that no bona fide homesteader whose entry was made prior to the 



16 AEKAKSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 

creation of the forest has anythmg to fear on account of the restric- 
tions of the forest homestead law. 

(/) Grazing permits. — I am very glad to state that under the wise 
provisions of the present grazing regulations upon Arkansas forests, 
whereby each owner is allowed to graze 25 head of cattle and horses, 
50 head of swme, or 75 head of sheep and goats without fee or permit, 
there is now very little complaint or comment on account of such reg- 
ulations, as only the few large owners are required to pay grazing fees. 

Up to this year the grazing regulations have been one of the prin- 
cipal factors causing opposition to the national forests, as the rumor 
was freely circulated that a large fee would be required. 

ig) Alleged retarding of settlement and railroad development in Mont- 
gomery County. — In talking with many citizens in Montgomery 
County to determine their position on the national forest question, it 
was alleged by several that the creation of the forest had retarded 
and was retarding the settlement of Montgomery County. It is very 
true that if the forest had not been created much of the present vacant 
public land within the forest would have been entered under the 
timber -and-stone act or would have been scripped or homesteaded 
for the timber. For the time being this would bring additional people 
to Montgomery County, and until such homesteaders could receive 
patent either by commutation or five years' residence they would be 
compelled to live on their claims. I doubt, however, if it would 
mean a great many more permanent residents in the county. Addi- 
tional logging operations are bound to occur in the different parts of 
the county, and while in progress will of course brmg in a large num- 
ber of employees; but the mature timber on the national forest lands 
will also be sold, and consequently the stand of timber on national 
forest lands can be considered as great an asset to the county as it 
would be if in private ownership. 

It came to my attention that in the northwestern part of Mont- 
gomery County, where considerable land has been located under the 
timber and stone act and by scrip, numerous homesteaders have sold to 
a timber company very soon after final certificate was issued, and have 
moved away, leaving the fields which they had cleared and cultivated 
to grow up to weeds, and the houses and barns which they had erected 
to go to ruin. The timber company is not renting these cultivable 
lands, and is simply holding the claims purchased awaiting railroad 
development. In general, these homesteaders who sold out moved 
West, spent the money obtained for the land, and returned to Arkan- 
sas without means to buy more land, and are living on rented places. 
Most of these places were under cultivation for some time and would 
have made good permanent homes. It was stated to me on good 
authority that within 6 miles of the town of Oden in the northwestern 
part of the county, from 60 to 75 homestead claims have been patented 
m the past five years, and that not more than 15 per cent of the 

Eatentees are now residing on the places. A great many of these 
omesteaders have sold to timber companies. 
About 3^ miles from Oden on the road to Waldron, and farther 
for a distance of 5 or 6 miles, there are 12 farms now vacant contain- 
ing from 10 to 40 acres each which have been cultivated. The houses 
are falling in and the fields growing up to brush. Practically all of 
these patentees are now renting land or are chicken peddling, and 
do not own a foot of land, having sold out to timber buyers. It was 



ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 17 

freely stated by prominent citizens of Oden that this condition wouhl 
not have occurred il" tlie forest had been created five or six years ago, 
and if the companies had been unable to secure large tracts by scrij)- 
ping and through timber and stone locators, these homesteaders 
would have remained on their farms, and then when nearby govern- 
ment timber was sold, they would have had an opportunity to sell 
their stumpage also. 

In talking with other citizens of Montgomery County, they were 
favorable to the elimination of the forest, jirovided it would only be 
open to homestead entry, but when they found that if an elimination 
was made tlie public land would be open to disposal under any of the 
public-land laws, including the timber and stone act, they were of 
the opinion that the present situation was preferable, but hoped that 
the forest homestead laws would be somewhat broadened. 

It was also argued that the presence of the national forest pre- 
vented railroad development in the county. I am sure that this is 
an erroneous impression, as the survey of tlie Gurdon and Fort Smith 
road is expected to give a through line from Fort Smith to the south- 
eastern part of Arkansas and to be a ])art of a large railroad system. 
I was informed that the termination of construction, leaving the 
present terminal at Womble, was due to an unsatisfactory preliminary 
survey which called for a higher gradient than was desired by the 
promotors of the road. In the issue of the Montgomery Times of 
March 25 it is stated that the work of the extension of the railroad 
from Womble toward Fort Smith will be begun within six weeks 
from that date, and without doubt the road will be completed within 
a few years. I do not believe that it can be considered that the 
presence of the national forest will in any way delay the construction 
of this road. 

(h) Stricter enforcement of homestead law following a looser enforce- 
ment. — As in other parts of the country, and owing largely to the 
limited number of special agents previously at the disposal of the 
Commissioner of the General Land Office, it has become customary 
to comply more or less fictitiously to the rec^uirements of the home- 
stead law. The advent of the national forest produced closer scru- 
tiny of the entries at the time final proof was offered, on account of 
the report by the forest officer, and in some instances this close 
scrutiny was viewed with alarm by the entrymen and so produced 
some antagonism to the Forest Service. This antagonism was to be 
expected and was unpreventable. During the investigation, I 
heard considerable comment made by the bona fide homesteaders, 
who were complying strictly with the homestead law and had nothing 
to fear, expressing satisfaction that those who were not complying 
with the homestead law would have trouble in proving up. They 
seemed to think that it was only justice that those who had been 
unfaithful in complying with the law should not reap the same 
benefits as those who had fully complied. 

As the claims go to final proof, this antagonism will diminish, and 
at the present time I do not consider it a very important factor in 
the present antiforest agitation. 

(i) Long delays in receiving final certificates. — These delays have 
occasioned a good deal of worry on the part of the entrymen. and the 
blame for such delays was attributed to the presence of the national 
forest. ]\Iany of the delays seem to have been caused by the inability 

42675—10 2 



18 ARKAKSAS NATIONAL FOEEST. 

of the forest officers to make a report on the claim during the time 
of the pubhcation of the notice of final proof. Consequently the 
copy of the notice of publication would be returned to the register 
and receiver with notation from the forest supervisor that a report 
would be submitted. The register would then notify the entryman 
that the Forest Service requested suspension of his proof pending an 
investigation and report. This alarmed the entryman and gave him 
the impression that the Forest Service was endeavoring to contest 
his proof. },Ieanwhile the papers were transmitted to the General 
Land Office by the register, and it would be several months before 
the forest officer's report could be taken up in connection with the 
final proof papers and final certificate issued. 

Under the present and more recent procedure between the Forest 
Service and the General Land Office it is believed that these long 
delays will be obviated, especially as the number of entries going to 
proof will gradually diminish, so that the reports can be made and 
transmitted very soon after the fu'st publication of the notice of the 
offering of final proof. 

(j) Forest homestead policy and delays in examination. — In some 
instances there have been long delays in examination of land applied 
for under the forest homestead act of June 11, 1906. These delays 
were due in some cases to mining-claim complications and in other 
cases to the fact that the land examiners could only visit the forest 
periodically, and applications received shortly after the land exam- 
mer's work on the forest had been completed would not be examined 
until enough other applications had been received on the forest to 
warrant the expense or the long trip from Albuquerque, X. Mex., the 
headquarters of the district, to cover the applications which had accu- 
mulated subsequently to the former visit. In some cases the period 
between the application and examination was several months. 

It has been held that the forest homestead policy on the Arkansas 
forest has been too strict and that some of the land applied for which 
was rejected should have been listed as being chiefly valuable for 
agriculture. This is a debatable question as, almost without excep- 
tion, the land applied for is covered with a timber growth, although 
in many instances the stand is second growth and repi-esents very 
little merchantable timber at the present time. It is also contended 
that the steeper slopes which would be unsuitable for the ordinary 
agricultural crops could be successfully used for orchard and vine- 
yard purposes. This also is a debatable question. The country has 
been long settled, but there has been almost a complete absence of 
successful orchards on any of the farms, and before the land should 
be listed for horticultural purposes, I believe that it should be dem- 
onstrated that fruit growing can be profitably pursued on these slopes. 
There are thousands of acres of alienated lands embracing slopes such 
as are applied for under the act of June 11, 1906, but none of the 
owners are using those slopes for orchard or vineyard purposes. At 
the present time it appears that the land examiners are correct in 
recommending against the listing of such lands, as those slopes carry 
a fair stand of timber and are undoubtedly more valuable for timber 
crops than for agriculture or horticulture. The residents have con- 
flicting views upon the question of successful apple raising in these 
mountains. It is held by some that the soil does not contain a suf- 
ficient quantity of lime and that therefore no one has been successful 



ARKAXSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 19 

in apple raising. It has also been claimed that the trees die very 
quickh' on account of the shallowness of the soil on the slopes and 
some of the bench lands. 

The listing of land on the bench lands above the bottom lands of 
the river is also a question calling for careful consideration, especially 
in cases where the stand of timber is mosth^ second growth and 
young reproduction. These so-called bench lands are rolling and in 
places quite broken, and it is doubtful if much of the land which has 
not already been entered can be considered as more valuable for 
agriculture than for timber, considering the cost of clearing and the 
amount of timber already on the land. 

It is possible that the land examiners have been too strict in 
their application of the forest homestead law on this forest, and I 
am glad to know that during the present summer this question will 
be thoroughly investigated by Prof. George L. Clothier, who is con- 
nected with the Agricultural College of the University of Mississippi. 
He is probably the most able and competent man to make this 
investigation, as he has a thorough knowledge of agriculture, soil, 
and also of different phases of forestry. It is expected that Professor 
Clothier, from his field investigation this summer, will be able to 
formulate a forest homestead policy which will settle these debatable 
questions. 

(k) Timher tresj^d^s cases. — There have been comparativel}^ few 
timber trespass cases in Montgomery County since the establishment 
of the forest, but in the treatment of trespass cases on pending home- 
steads the settlement of such cases has naturally aroused antagonism 
on the ]3art of the trespassers. I find that the cases were thoroughly 
investigated prior to final action, and were in accordance with authori- 
tative court decisions. 

As the citizens of Montgomery County are law abiding, little 
sympathy is expressed for a trespasser if it believed that he was 
violating the law, and I do not consider these few timber trespass 
cases as having a material bearing on the cause of the antiforest 
sentiment. 

(I) Enforcement of fire law. — It has been customary for a good many 
years to burn the woods in the mountains of Arkansas. The alleged 
beneficial result from this annual burning is warmly indorsed by 
many of the citizens. It is claimed b}" them that the burning of the 
woods encourages the growth of forest grasses and destroys ticks. I 
found, however, that there were many citizens of Montgomery 
County, some of them elderly men who had lived in the county for 
manv years, wiio were opposed to the burning of the woods, maintain- 
ing that in the long run it was very damaging to the timber, the soil, 
and the range. Old residents of the mountain region acknowledge 
that the grazing in early days was much better than at the present 
time after years of burning. They also acknowledge that in the 
early days tlie woods were much more open than at the present time. 
Fires kill back young trees and cause a great increase in the number 
of sprouts from the base of the stems. After the sprouting has once 
started it takes repeated fires to keep the woods open. If fires are 
kept out, the woods will, of course, be dense for a comparatively short 
time, but after a few years will be open as in the early days. Even 
though the woods are burned over annually, and the amount of litter 
and debris which accumulates is very small, the slight fires which 



20 AEKAKSAS TTATTONAL FOREST. 

occur scar the butts of even the large trees, rots enter, and the trees 
become defective. An examination of areas burned over repeatedly 
shows that such areas contain extremely defective timber. Lumber- 
men acknowledge this fact and in general are opposed to burning the 
woods. I believe it is also an acknowledged fact that repeated burn- 
ing damages the roots of tlie grass and causes a deterioration of the 
soil. I noticed instances where slopes had been burned over, and 
succeeding rainfalls had washed nearly all the soil from the slopes. 

It is evident that in the long run fires are detrimental to both the 
timber and the range, and it is to be hoped that eventually the custom 
of burning the woods will be abolished. 

As long as the national forest is maintained, it should be the 
endeavor of the forest officers to prevent fires from burning on the 
government land or spreading to them. I believe, considering the 
per cent of citizens in Montgomery County who are already opposed 
to the burning of the woods, that it will not be many years before the 
sentiment will have changed on this point. When the residents come 
to the conclusion that burning is inadvisable, it will be an easy matter 
to prevent and suppress forest fires. 

In the issue of the Montgomery Times of March 1 1 an editorial 
occurs openly advocating the burning, althcnigh, I believe, aside from 
the federal law, there is a state law against burning the woods without 
certain notification to the neighboring farmers and making violation 
of the law a misdemeanor. It appears that there were many fires this 
season and considerable damage was done, and in the issue of the 
Montgomery Times of April 15 a notice is given to all homesteaders 
or residents who suftered any loss on account of damage to fences^ 
buildings, or other improvements, to submit bills for such loss, to be 
presented to the Government on the ground that the forest officers 
should have been able to suppress the fire. 

The position taken by the Montgomery Times on this subject seems 
to be untenable, as it first advocates the burning of the woods in 
defiance of the state and federal law, and then, after the burning 
occurs, demands that the Government should pay for damage 
sustained. 

SENTIMENT. 

From the issues of the Montgomery Times the impression is 
given that the sentiment against the national forest is practically 
unanimous. I found that this was not the case, although very likely 
if the question were put to a vote, a majority of the residents would 
vote for the elimination. In the largest town in the county, viz, 
Womble, the preponderance of opinion on the subject is decidedly 
proforest. I found that the leading citizens of that town were in 
sympathy with the Forest Service policy, and deplored the Mount 
Ida antiforest agitation. On the other hand, at Mount Ida, the 
county seat, the feeling is decidedly antiforest. In the town of 
Oden I found that nearly all the prominent citizens were proforest, 
and one who, I believe, is the largest individual landowner in the 
county, expressed himself as thoroughly in favor of the national 
forest. At the smaller hamlets, and among the farmers, settlers, and 
homesteaders the sentiment is divided, and by no means are all 
opposed to the national forest. 

Last year a wagon road crossing two mountains at a good grade 
was constructed by the forest service in cooperation with the settlers, 



ARKANSAS NATIONAL FOREST, 21 

and I fouiul tluit this road was being largely used and liad received 
much favorable comment and decreased the distance to the railroad 
for a large number of settlers by about 9 or 10 miles. Realizing the 
value of the work done, these settlers are very favorable to the Forest 
Service administration. 

Effect of proposed elimination of Montgomery County. — To eliminate 
Montgomery County from the Arkansas National Forest would carve 
out a large block of the very roughest land in the entire State. 
Most of the vacant government land affected is worthless for agri- 
culture, but if properly cared for is capable of producing timber crops. 

The elimination of Montgomery County would seriously interfere 
with the administration of the Arkansas National Forest. Ranger 
districts have been made, ranger headquarters established, and sev- 
eral important government timber sales are in progress in the county. 
The reason for including .the addition covered by the proclamation of 
February 27, 1909, was to facilitate administration by straightening 
the boundaries, preventing fire which threatened the forest, and pre- 
venting timber trespass and the fraudulent acquiring of title. Ap- 
proximately 15,800 acres of land within Montgomery County have 
been restored to the Government since the creation of the forest 
because of failure on the part of the claimants to comply with the 
public-land laws. 

The existence of the national forest does not interfere in any way 
with the actual rights of bona fide settlers, and since nearly all of the 
claims cases have been settled, there is little or no occasion for dis- 
satisfaction in the future. It is probable, however, that certain por- 
tions of Montgomery County should be eliminated in the future, on 
account of the large per cent of alienated lands which occurs in some 
of the townships, notably T. 2 S., R. 27 W.: T. 2 S., R. 26 W.; 
T. 1 S., R. 26 W.; T. 1 S., R. 25 W.; T. 2 S., R. 24 W.: T. 1 S., 
R. 24 W.; T. 2 S., R. 25 W. But before any elimination should be 
made the result of the timber estimate ami topographic map, which 
is now being made by a field party in charge of Lumberman Adams, 
should be known. Also more definite information should be obtained 
as to the .number of pending homestead entries nov^• of recortl which 
have been abandoned and will subsequently be canceled on account 
of such abandonment. This information will be obtained during the 
present sunnner, and together with the result of Professor Clothier's 
investigation will give tlie necessar^^ factors upon which to base a 
recommendation for the elimination of portions of the Arkansas forest 
which are so heavily alienated as to prevent economical adnunistra- 
tion of the remaining scattering government lands in such areas. 

If such eliminations are made, carefid consideration must be given 
to the boundary of the reduced forest in order to facilitate economical 
administration! The information desired will be obtained by the 
coming fall, and at that time the question should be carefidly con- 
sidered and advisable eliminations recommended for a presidential 
proclamation to reduce the forest accordingly. 

Attached to this report is a map sliowing the portion of Montgomery 
County within the forest and indicating in color the vacant Govern- 
ment land and the pending homesteads. As all pending homesteads 
of record are shown on this map, it is impossible at this time to give 
an approximation of the number which have been abandoned or which 
will fail to go to patent. 



22 ARKAKSAS NATIONAL FOREST. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

For the reasons given in the above discussion, it is recommended 
that Montgomery County be not eKminated, but when the informa- 
tion is obtained during the coming summer as to the approximate 
acreage of pending homestead entries which have been abandoned, 
and the amount of timber, second growth, and reproduction on 
government land, and the correct forest homestead poHcy to be 
pursued, the question be carefully considered of the advisability of 
eliminating by proclamation certain of the more heavily alienated 
portions of Montgomery County, and other parts of tlie Arkansas 
National Forest. 

It is believed that all legitimate complaints have been or can 
speedily be remedied as outlined in the above discussion under the 
heading ''Probable reasons for bill." 

Respectfully submitted. 

D. D. Bronson, 
General Inspector, Forest Service. 

O 



"ih 



m 



m 

Mm 



Pi 



K'ligj 






II s 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





